The tone of the proceedings sharply turned in Microsoft's favor, especially when discussing U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, prompting one legal observer to say that the government's chances of a breakup of the software giant are now sunk.

Jackson issued the historic order splitting Microsoft for antitrust violations, then was quoted in interviews as comparing chairman Bill Gates to Napoleon and the company to a drug-dealing street gang.

Microsoft's lawyers got a break from Monday's pointed questions, allowing them to give their prepared remarks almost completely unmolested. But the government's advocates got no respite.

``I'm not sure how you can ask us with a straight face'' not to consider the appearance of bias, Judge David Sentelle asked John Roberts, speaking for the government. ``What possible legitimate reason could you assign, unless the judge was biased against them?''

Added Judge David Tatel: ``I don't see how you can get around the fact that the words he chose did convey to the average person bias.''

Jackson granted some of the interviews on an embargoed basis before the antitrust trial ended last year with the expectation they would be published afterward a fact singled out by some appeals judges.

``Had he not placed that embargo he would have been off that case in a minute,'' Judge A. Raymond Randolph said.

Chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Harry Edwards, left, questions government attorney David Frederick in Washington on Tuesday, Feb. 27, in this artist rendering.

Associated Press Photo

Harry Edwards, the chief judge of the appeals court in Washington, questioned whether Jackson violated his oath as a jurist.

``There are some who would say that (Jackson's behavior) violates the whole oath of office,'' Edwards said.

``The system would be a sham if all judges went around doing this,'' Edwards continued. ``The public has something at stake, it's the integrity of the system.''

Jackson declined comment Tuesday, his office said.

U.S. Appeals Court judges in the Microsoft case pose in Washington on Feb. 22. Standing from left are judges David S. Tatel, A. Raymond Randolph, David B. Sentelle, and Judith W. Rogers. Seated from left are Stephen F. Williams, Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards and Douglas Ginsburg.

Associated Press Photo

The appeals court must determine if Jackson's statements warrant removing him from further proceedings, taint his factual findings that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitve practices or are grounds for a retrial with a different judge.

A key question for the court is whether Jackson held his views about Microsoft before he began hearing the case.

Tatel told Microsoft lawyer Richard Urowsky there was no evidence ``other than your own speculation that he had these views before the trial started.''

Nonetheless, George Washington University law professor William Kovacic, who has followed the case, said the appeals judges' criticism of the trial judge was unusual.

``There are clearly some people on the court who would like to behead him,'' Kovacic said.

Microsoft lawyer Steven Holley said Jackson was ``motivated by a desire to punish'' the software giant, and that there was a ``rush to judgment'' without the opportunity for Microsoft to rebut government witnesses showing how a breakup could work.

The Justice Department's lawyers sought to keep the focus on what the trial court said was Microsoft's predatory efforts to hurt Web browser competitors like Netscape by packing its popular Windows operating system with Microsoft's own Web browser.

``This case is about using two arms to strangle a nascent competitor, using the applications arm to protect the operating system monopoly arm,'' government lawyer David Frederick argued.

The appeals judges also raised questions about flaws in Jackson's ruling. Edwards said ``the district court made no finding of the appropriate market'' for Internet browsers, which was crucial to whether Netscape was pushed out of the browser market.

That prompted Sentelle to question whether the case would need to be sent back.

Kovacic said the judges' relentless attacks on Jackson's work and comments put the government's case in jeopardy.

``I don't think we're going to see a breakup,'' Kovacic said. ``At the very worst, if there is a remedy, it will be remanded to a district court.''

A decision in the appeal is not expected for several months, but at least three members of Congress, including Majority Leader Dick Armey, released statements calling for an end to the antitrust effort.